- From: Dael Jackson <daelcss@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:09:32 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
CSS3 UI ------- - This discussion focused on two different items: the previous decision of the working group to add Florian as a co-editor to CSS3 UI and how CSS3 UI should progress forward. - In regards to co-editorship, it was decided that Florian should function as co-editor for CSS UI Level 4 instead of for level 3. - Progress on CSS3 UI will hopefully move forward more quickly now that tantek has time to focus on it and more unstable items will be moved back to level 4. - The work Florian already has done to take previous commits into bikeshed will still be handled by the two of them and they will work together to get the edits Florian found into CSS3 UI. - RESOLVED: Add Florian as a CSS UI level 4 editor, not to level 3 and they will work together on publishing the pieces that Florian already prepared for level 3 Exclusions and Position ----------------------- - RESOLVED: New WD for Exclusions and Position pseudo-elements --------------- - The FPWD of pseudo-elements will happen after language is added for ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error, including information pertaining to the security concerns. Restructuring CSS Generated Content ----------------------------------- - There was a lot of support for the general path dauwhe is taking on Generated Content and it was agreed that as issues come up they'll be discussed further on the list. - RESOLVED: Proceed as outlined by dauwhe for Generated Content and continue conversing on the ML Host for 'content' property --------------------------- - The 'content' property should stay where it is. :hover pseudo ------------- - The language was wrong and will be changed Where does ::selection inherit from? ------------------------------------ - fantasai asked for responses on the mailing list about where ::selection should inherit from. The thread is available here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html ===== FULL MINUTES BELOW ====== Present: David Baron Bert Bos Bo Campbell Tantek Çelik Dave Cramer Alex Critchfield Elika Etemad Simon Fraser Sylvain Galineau Daniel Glazman Dael Jackson Chris Lilley Peter Linss Shinyu Murakami Keshav Puttaswamy Florian Rivoal Simon Sapin Dirk Schulze Alan Stearns Lea Verou Greg Whitworth Steve Zilles Regrets: Rossen Atanassov Mike Miller Simon Pieters Anton Prowse Scribe: dael glazou: Let's start. glazou: Florian, I got your request late. <Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/8ADFE4C9-579D-4DF2-B6CD-53FF9C2D6ADB@rivoal.net <Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/FD5224A3-309C-4B65-BD71-D50D4F0314BC@rivoal.net Florian: I got two points, they're linked above. glazou: Anything else? Other extra items? Bo_Campbell: I wanted to introduce an item if we have time. glazou: I missed your e-mail announcing you joined the group. We usually do the introductions on the ML. Bo_Campbell: I did send an introduction, but I'll do that again. CSS3 UI ------- <smfr> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/ <tantek> dael, see my email to www-style on this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0199.html tantak: I requested we talk about what changes first. glazou: We want to revisit the discussion. tantek: I wanted to do edits separately of editorship. glazou: The context is in Sophia we decided that CSS3-UI was long unattended. We don't have a good track record in general of PRs and REC. We retired a few documents as notes and gutted notes, the rest we wanted active editorship. glazou: CSS3-UI was mentioned in Sophia with no complete decision. It was 2 months before TPAC. So at TPAC we decided not to remove your editorship, tantek. The WG only decided to add another name, someone who is more available to do editorial stuff to make progress. That's all I have to say as the chair. I'll participate as a member. tantek: That's the first I've heard about this. The first I heard about the new heartbeat requirement was from plinss at TPAC. My understanding is that the group is now, as you said, making a priority of end of life-ing a document or make it more actively published. Is that correct? glazou: That plus there's new suggestions coming, for instance from Bloomberg, and that was discussed in Sophia. tantek: Was there resolution to add something? What was resolved to CSSUI? The previous was to keep the working items in 3 and postpone the rest. glazou: There were a few additions. Florian: It was recognizing and accepting items to work on. tantek: That makes sense to accept things to work on. There was a drive to wrap up CSS3-UI as is and put anything squishy and uncertain in 4. I'm fine with caret-color, but I think, being that items, are beyond the scope of that plan, I'd push against them being added to level 3. glazou: I think it depends on implementations, so it's not in our hands. tantek: I agree on that. <astearns> (some of the) CSS UI resolutions from Sophia: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0260.html * astearns notes that we also resolved to add Tab as a co-editor to CSS UI in Sophia: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0295.html * sgalineau thinks the issue of how we make the spec progress is orthogonal to whomever edits it glazou: I would like to understand, you object to a new co-editor, not a new editor. glazou: This is the first time in the history of the WG, so I'd like to understand why. tantek: I objected to the order of discussions. I'd object to this about any document. My understanding of the way the WG has worked is there is an order of operations where if the WG decides we need a new draft or changes, the WG can decide even without the editor there and give a certain date for completion. My understanding this has been at least 2 weeks tantek: I object to skipping completely and changing editors. glazou: It happened with howcome. fantasai: Your understanding of how the WG has worked is wrong. I've been here for 10 years and we've added co-editors to docs and there's never been a requirement or consideration of competence for the old editors. What we have considered is if the person is willing and interested. If there was a case of incompetence your process makes sense. We have had people leave and disappear. tantek: We have a different memory than. fantasai: I can read off minutes. * sgalineau is not sure the way the WG has done things in the past is an interesting or relevant topic <SimonSapin> I don’t think we asked Melinda Grant or Håkon before adding me as co-editor to css-page tantek: This WG has had a healthier interaction than you describe. I don't want to see that go forward. We're talking about a way forward. I also object to brining in incompetence to the conversation. <fantasai> tantek: I don't understand why you think this is unhealthy. Person volunteers to help me edit my spec. I don't have a problem with it. WG agrees to add the editor. Done. <tantek> fantasai - rudeness is unhealthy. <tantek> I don't understand why you're defending that. <fantasai> tantek: What is rude about the process I just described? Nothing. <fantasai> tantek: What's rude is maybe that you were not present at the last discussion about editorship of css3-ui <fantasai> tantek: Yes, I agree that's rude <fantasai> tantek: We should not do that. <fantasai> tantek: but that's a different issue as to whether we need to prove that you cannot handle editing the spec before we consider volunteers to co-edit <sgalineau> fantasai: I think it's rude if there is no follow up and the editor finds out weeks later by accident. <fantasai> sgalineau: I'm not contesting that. <fantasai> sgalineau: Is it rude if the editor was present in the original discussion? <sgalineau> fantasai: just saying it's not necessarily rude to make those calls without the editor. <sgalineau> fantasai: I think we're off in the weeds and spending way too much time discussing everything except what the WG wants to do with the spec Florian: I think the example of howcome wasn't interesting here. I think another would be when I was editing MQ and I was doing it moderately actively. TabAtkins had an interest in working on it, he was added, did edits, and there was no consideration to not responding. TabAtkins worked as a co-editor and responded to requests from the WG and made edits. I think that was useful. Florian: At the moment I have time and interest for the spec and adding my time I hope would help it move forward. This isn't about you responding to the group. To drive things forward isn't just about responding, it's about considering what has been added in other places and pushing the group. We're not retiring you because you're not responsive. tantek: Florian I'm not blaming you. I appreciate you have time and interest to work on CSS UI. As I've communicated privately, I think the more interesting work is level 4 and that's an area that I explicitly recommend needs more work and could use the help of a co-editor in more ways that CSS3 UI tantek: So let's do that for 4. For 3 let's trim things in a way I think I can be more effective at as a single editor. I don't want to squash enthusiasm and want to see you help work on level 4 where there's renewed interest. That's how I'd like to move forward with you, Florian if that's okay. I'd rather collaborative decisions instead of overriding opinions. glazou: You're proposing a co-editor rule. tantek: I'm proposing for level 4. glazou: It has two levels to work on. <astearns> I think it's a fine compromise to add Florian as a co- editor to level 4 and have Tantek move level 3 forward glazou: To go back to fantasai point we have plenty of examples about adding editors. The last document you edited in this group was fullscreen. Okay, you attended a few calls, but rarely the full thing. You're far less involved than you used to be. tantek: I think you're changing the topic and it's not relevant. glazou: I think it is. tantek: If Florian and I can work out how we think CSS UI should work, I think we should be able to do that. glazou: The WG should decide. tantek: I don't think they should micromanage. glazou: The group decides. We're lax, but everything we do is decided by the WG. All our rules are decided by the WG. You know that. tantek: Rarely does the WG decide against what an editor is trying to do. I understand we're run by consensus, but we try and work with the desires of those working. glazou: We had consensus and we're still discussing it. tantek: No one is arguing about able, but I think there's a better way forward. glazou: We heard you, I'd like to hear from other WG members. Florian: With the level 4 proposal, I'm happy to do that. In level 3 there's one or two things that concern me a bit. To be able to work on 4, it's not productive if 3 isn't somewhere between PR and REC. Florian: I currently intend to go line by line to see if there are things that need to be addressed, go through the wiki, bring things to the ML. I can forward all the resolutions and proposals to you, but having you as a gatekeeper sounds like unnecessary overheard. tantek: I'm not talking about delays, I'm making this a priority and I'm committing to working actively to dealing with the issues regarding CSS3 UI. I think we can work together to conquer the items and divide them between 3 and 4. I don't think this is gate-keeping, I'd like to try the way I proposed for a couple weeks to see how it goes. If you want to start 4 from the current state of 3 that's reasonable, but I'm more of the opinion I'd like the changes... tantek: to 3 to be more conservative. Even if they're editorial, I think it slows things down. I think the two levels should be handled differently. I'd like you to take charge of the much more free to make changes part where the gate-keeping is getting 3 more quickly to CR. <TabAtkins> FWIW, I'm still of the opinion that we should only have one active level of a module at a time, with "higher" modules being maintained as deltas except when published. Don't think we have a single instance of co-active module levels that were *actually* properly maintained, with fixes propagating both ways. glazou: It seems that you're the author, owner, and decider, not the editor. The WG is the owner and they will decide how to handle it. tantek: I think I'm looking for collaboration. I'd like to see Florian and I make progress. <bkardell> "Try it for a few weeks" seems relatively harmless... Why not give it a shot with review in 2 or 3 weeks <glazou> bkardell: yes Florian: I'd like to clarify when I said line by line, I don't mean to change things everywhere, I mean to refine things that are insufficiently explained or see when things have been more accurately described in another place. Florian: For example, the introduction is a bit out of date. For the actual text, I don't plan on making major changes and agree with you about it being conservative. If you have time to actively work great, but I'm concerned that I have spec changes I want to put in and sending you patches isn't as straight forward as doing it. tantek: Yes, I have time to work on this and am making this a priority and I recognize that I haven't in the past. So I'd like to work on moving this forward together. glazou: I'd like to hear from others. <tantek> I think astearns had an opinion andreyr: I think that Florian should be a co-editor as we voted. I don't see a problem with that. glazou: Other opinions? astearns: I can live with tantek's plan, but I agree with Florian it's unnecessarily bureaucratic so I'd prefer Florian as a co-editor. fantasai: I don't see a problem with Florian being the co-editor. I think since he has patches it seems silly to have him put it through the mailing list. I think they should be able to work together. tantek: That's not what's being proposed. I'm proposing something much more interactive. A two week wait is ridiculous. SteveZ: It seemed to me that tantek and Florian were working out a relationship and it seems to me that the group doesn't need to micromanage. I'm coming down that Florian should be an editor and we leave it to them to work out how they divide the work on 3 and 4. I know that's not exactly what tantek is asking, but I think that they can work it out. Florian: I do think it would be simpler if I'm a coeditor. I don't object to having tantek be the one doing it and me forwarding requests, but it seems unnecessary. If that's the only way forward, it's better than none, but it's process heavy. tantek: I don't want to be process heavy. I think dividing the work between 3 and 4 would be more efficient. I don't want to be a gatekeeper, I'll keep an eye on what you do to 4 and I'll be very conservative on 3 and we can interact on IRC or e-mail or whatever. This isn't about process, this is about being efficient. fantasai: TabAtkins said earlier that 2 specs that are duplicating the same content doesn't work well. When there's two levels we have the second be a delta until the one above stabilizes. Florian doing level 4 means he won't be able to work on much. tantek: I don't think so. 3 is pretty stable. glazou: What if the WG decides in 2 weeks to add something the CSS3 UI. You said you want conservative. We can change our mind and decide to add something, will you let it be. tantek: Yes, if the WG decides to change we'll do it, but I think CSS3 UI is a release branch and active work will go into 4. Back-porting bug fixes will need to be work on CSS3 UI. That's part of the natural course of working on specs. <dbaron> I don't think that addresses how the work will happen to define the features in level 3 more carefully and precisely. glazou: So we need to move on. tantek, Florian what's the plan? You guys start working together and reach a gentlemen's agreement on how to proceed? Florian: I would like to point out that I'd agree more with tantek if the spec was in late CR. tantek: The reason it's not is it already has bounced a lot and I spent time working on the new process. I understand that the WG is now on the new process. Florian: We move them at the first opportunity. tantek: Okay. That's why I wanted to focus on the new process, but I did that too long. I'm sorry. I'm back. glazou: dbaron is on the queue. dbaron: We should wrap up. Florian: This is more controversial than I thought. I prepared commits to bikeshed the spec. I'd like to push that through and then we work as you described onward. tantek: I'm okay with that. <tantek> thank you Florian <tantek> and thank you glazou for permitting an agreement between Florian and myself glazou: Okay, we have an agreement. fantasai: Do we have a resolution on the editorship of CSS3 UI? <tantek> let Florian talk <tantek> please fantasai fantasai: Is Florian added? glazou: Not as an editor. They will discuss how they will work together. <tantek> Florian go ahead Florian: We have discussed. Florian: I am added as a level 4 editor, not to level 3. tantek will work on that and I'll forward what's needed to him. I'll publish what I've already prepared for 3. Florian: tantek, is that a correct desc? tantek: I agree and further commit to reducing any overhead in moving forward. RESOLVED: Add Florian as a CSS UI level 4 editor, not to level 3 and they will work together on publishing the pieces that Florian already prepared for level 3 glazou: tantek, does that resolution work for you? tantek: And you wanted to record the changes to level 3? Oh, yes, okay. Exclusions and Position ----------------------- gregwhitworth: That item was from rossen and he converted them to bikeshed and made editorial changes. That's what I know. If you have comments, let me know, but he wanted to get it on the agenda. gregwhitworth: That's it. glazou: Comments? <andreyr> I am in favor astearns: I'm in favor <Florian> +1 glazou: Me too. glazou: Objections? <dbaron> what's in this new draft? RESOLVED: New WD for Exclusions and Position <dbaron> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014OctDec/0104.html says that the edits to css-position are migration to bikeshed and editorial fixes (typos and broken links) <dbaron> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2014OctDec/0090.html says that the edits to css-exclusions are migration to bikeshed and editorial fixes (mostly typos and broken links) pseudo-elements --------------- <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html fantasai: There's some issues. Adding ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error was discussed, but there was no resolution. dbaron: Do we want these specifically, or something more generic? <dbaron> ... for named selections fantasai: I think we discussed that there would be more generic, but these two would need to be hard coded. We could share syntax with functional notation, but it makes sense to put these by themselves, like ::selection. I'm open to other ideas. Florian: What is the current question being asked? <tantek> I'm confused too glazou: A FPWD for psuedo-elements. <fantasai> Question is: Do we add ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error <andreyr> I vote yes. fantasai: Right now about ::grammar-error and ::spelling-error Florian: My answer to that is yes if it includes security. glazou: Do we need it for FPWD? Florian: It's better to have it if we know it's wanted. gregwhitworth: What if it was more generic? A way to just control the color of the squiggle, no matter how it's used. I can think of other ways to use it. fantasai: You can style squiggle with text decoration. <tantek> who is editing [css-pseudo] ? * fantasai is <Florian> tantek: editors are fantasai, glazou, astearns. Theoretically TabAtkins as well, but he's not acted on it. <tantek> Florian thanks. <glazou> tantek: original authors are astearns and myself Florian: So, I would say it should be in FPWD since we roughly know how to spec it and it's good to have it there. <Bert> I agree with Florian: a note about security would be good in the FPWD. <tantek> I also agree with Florian re: a note about security would be good in the FPWD andreyr: I concur. glazou: So it seems we won't publish FPWD right now. fantasai: Yeah. glazou: So no FPWD until we add the security thing for ::spelling-error and ::grammar-error Restructuring CSS Generated Content ----------------------------------- <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0126.html dauwhe: It has a WD from 2003. We resolved in Sophia to move some of GCPM here and resurrect it and I want general permission to apply the last 11 years of history to this draft. For example, counters and numbering have their own spec. dauwhe: I had contacted the old editors and they're willing to become former editors. I'm bikeshedding and getting it closer to current, so I want to make sure there's no objections to this large scale tearing up of the spec. <ChrisL> +1 <SimonSapin> +1 Florian: No objections. I think it's a great thing. <tantek> +1 and appreciate that dauwhe explicitly contacted former editors <tantek> thank you dauwhe for that <fantasai> dauwhe++ dauwhe: Since this has the content property itself we'll need to deal with related issues here eventually. glazou: So objections to the proposed plan? glazou: I think it makes a lot of sense. Florian: Do we need to go through the A-H list on the e-mail? dauwhe: I think they're mostly fine. A lot of these are obvious. If small scale issues appear we can discuss on calls or list as needed. glazou: I think E & F need resolutions. dauwhe: I'm not ready for substantive conversations on those. I wanted them in for the awareness. <tantek> dauwhe: btw re: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-content/#content specifically 'icon' value - no one has implemented it <tantek> dauwhe: I had initially proposed that ('icon' value, and icon property), and it was in CSS3-UI, but am dropping from there, and am ok with you keeping it in css-content if you wish, but also ok with you dropping it. Up to you. glazou: So obj to the global plan? fantasai: I think it's great. <Bert> (I like Dave's plan) <andreyr> no objection Florian: I object to NOT doing it. ChrisL: Given that this is so old, it should be a FPWD as far as patent policy. RESOLVED: Proceed as outlined by dauwhe for Generated Content and continue conversing on the ML Host for 'content' property --------------------------- astearns: It sounds like I was wrong and we plan on having it apply outside pseudo-elements, so it shouldn't move. Florian: We mean to attempt it. dauwhe: I hope it succeeds. I'm so used to it for formatters. astearns: So the argument that what I put in the pseudo draft and should it go in content as well. dauwhe: Yes. dbaron: One of the big issues is how it effects resource loading and performance of getting them started quickly because one of the things authors are concerned about is getting the important things moving along the network quickly. If you have to load all the CSS before you retrieve images, it's a big obstacle. tantek: +1 to dbaron and the consequence is that authors either won't use the method or they'll use an alternative no matter how hacky. If you want this to work it must give them the sort of control dbaron is talking about. astearns: And I think there would be a big content-style separation argument. dbaron: Many of the use cases were for having CSS describe a markup language, not actual things authors would use. We're less interested in CSS being a complete description of how HTML works and part of that is the complexity of resource loading. glazou: Should we continue this or move on to something else for four minutes? dauwhe: I'm not sure we should have the last five minutes on something big. Florian: One of mine is short. :hover pseudo ------------- <Florian> http://www.w3.org/mid/FD5224A3-309C-4B65-BD71-D50D4F0314BC@rivoal.net <tantek> +1 agreed with Florian's proposal Florian: There's a non-normative statement that we should fix. Regarding the :hover pseudo when the label is hovered the control is also in the hover for HTML fantasai: Yeah, we need to change that. glazou: So there's an issue and it will be fixed. Where does ::selection inherit from? ------------------------------------ <fantasai> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0188.html fantasai: I've got a topic for ::selection. fantasai: I ran some tests on where ::selection inherits from. 1 is from parent ::selection, 2 are from originating element, and 1 where it's different for BG and color. fantasai: I wanted to ask implementors which behavior they prefer so we can spec it. <dbaron> I can't even load this issue into my head in 2 minutes. fantasai: We don't have to answer now, but I'd like an answer at some point. glazou: We should do that on the ML. fantasai: The discussion is here (above). I'm not expecting an answer now. glazou: Thank you. Anything else in the last minute? glazou: Okay. Sorry the first issue took so long. Thank you and talk to you next week.
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:10:00 UTC